Politics and Policy With a Punch

The Commission will receive a report from the Labor Trafficking Working Group, with a series of recommendations for improving the County’s ability to prevent, investigate, and prosecute labor trafficking. Recommendations include adding a District Attorney Investigator and Sheriff’s Office Detective Sergeant position, improving trainings (including training union members), and exploring revoking health permits for restaurants with wage theft or human trafficking violations.

The Committee will provide direction on a proposed Business License Program, which could be used as an enforcement mechanism for wage and hour laws.

The Administration is proposing that the County impose a business license requirement on all businesses operating in the unincorporated areas. Although the County does not have a means to accurately count the number of businesses in the unincorporated areas, there were approximately 5,525 businesses in operation as of 2012.

The purpose of this proposal is two-fold:

To institute a business registration, providing the Board of Supervisors and relevant departments with accurate data on commercial activity:

Enhance efforts to enforce existing ordinances and federal, state and local laws relating to pay equity and wage theft. The data acquired through the issuance of business licenses could be used to ensure that all permit requirements have been met as well as zoning compliance.

It is proposed that at the application stage, applicants for business licenses would self-certify their compliance with all applicable federal, state, and County laws, regulations, codes or ordinances. Where the holder of a license is subsequently found by a court or by final administrative action of an investigatory government agency to have violated applicable wage and hour laws, the County would have the discretion to suspend or revoke the business license to enforce compliance. Such an adjudication could also be used in the evaluation of an applicant for a business license and may be grounds for rejection. Denial of a business application or suspension or revocation of a business license would provide the business entity an opportunity to appeal the decision in an administrative hearing.

The Office of Countywide Contracting Management (OCCM) is currently negotiating an MOU with the California Labor Commissioner to obtain access to DLSE case files on hearing decisions to populate a County database of decisions on wage and hour violations recorded by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the Federal Department of Labor to assist in assessment of potential contractors and vendors. OCCM already has a MOU in place with the Federal Department of Labor. OCCM is also planning in the future to create a similar database for pay equity determinations. These databases could also assist in evaluation of license applicants and continuous enforcement of applicable state and federal laws.

The Administration proposes that a business licensing program be established in the Permit Center within the Department of Planning and Development.

Policy Issues: While the Administration would endeavor to make recommendations related to each of these policy questions, it would be useful to receive the Board of Supervisors’ perspective in these matters:

The proposed Program’s purposes are business registration and enforcement of local business-related permit requirements as well as state and federal laws pertaining to wage and hour and pay equity violations – is the Program too narrow or broad in its scope?

If existing businesses that apply for the new license are out-of-compliance with their zoning designation, should the County deny the license (with a due process hearing)?

In addition to zoning compliance, there are a myriad of business-related permit and certification requirements, if an existing business is found in violation of any of them – for example, a restaurant expands without acquiring a building permit – what should the County’s posture be relative to these violations?

At the March 14, 2017 Board meeting, Supervisor Simitian asked a series of questions about the proposal. Administration responses to these questions are available here.

Adoption of Just Cause and urgency ordinance for immediate eviction protections for tenants

Approval of Tenant Protection Ordinance and Urgency Ordinance that restricts no-cause evictions and establishes requirements for landlords to state a just cause for eviction. TPO will eliminate the lawful use of no-cause notices to vacate, which allows landlords to remove tenants by issuing a 30-60 day notice. It will require landlords to state one of the causes listed in the Ordinance as reason for the termination of tenancy of a multifamily apartment, a guestroom in a guesthouse, or an unpermitted unit. If the Urgency Ordinance is adopted, these protections will be provided immediately.

Arenas/Jimenez memo recommends that Council vote to support the proposed Urgency Ordinance.

Liccardo/Jones memo recommends adopting an urgency ordinance and approving staff recommendation; identifying a clear strategy for educating tenants and landlords of the requirements of the law, and of its implementation, and return to Council in the Fall with that strategy; direct the City Manager to identify a means for funding legal services for low income tenants needing assistance in effectuating their “just cause” rights.

Also recommends the following amendments:

Amending “17.23.1250 Just Cause Termination” to ensure that criminal activity committed on or near the premises shall provide an independent basis for tenant’s eviction, without requiring neighbors to testify or provide other evidence that the criminal conduct constitutes a legal “nuisance.”

Amending “17.23.1270 Anti-Retaliation Protections,” to prohibit landlords from threatening notification of immigration authorities of their tenants’ immigration status, or from sharing information regarding the immigration status of their tenants.

Carrasco/Peralez/Rocha memo is to accept staff recommendation for adoption and urgency ordinance.

Memo from Mayor Liccardo and CM Rocha: “In the short-term, we recommend the City Manager pursue funding for EMS system improvements through the County’s EMS Trust Fund with the goal of achieving greater operational efficiency. The County’s established process for funding projects through the EMS Trust Fund involves a year-long process. Recommendations #lb and #lc pursue funding through this established process, but in recommendation #ld, we encourage the exploration of the possibility that the County will accelerate decision-making in the interests of improving critically-needed service improvements.

To better educate and frame future EMS decisions, we recommend directing staff to bring back Council discussion of EMS models and potential solutions with the explicit goal of greater system efficiency, thereby saving taxpayer dollars. We recommend that this discussion return to Council soon, because San Jose must decide immediately whether to begin organizing a public bid, or to advocate for our residents’ interests as the RFP is developed.”

The memo recommends that Council take the following actions:

(a) Direct staff to pursue funding through the County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Trust Fund to complete EMS system improvements that will improve emergency medical response. The City Manager should take the following actions:

(1) Identify a list of improvements – in excess of the approximately $8 million of funding that has been withheld under the contract – both (a) eligible for funding out of the EMS Trust Fund, (b) of benefit to improve EMS response times by both Fire crews and County ambulances.

(2) Agendize these projects for review by the Santa Clara County Fire Chief’s Association at the next meeting of the SCCFCA.

(3) Submit applications for these projects to the County by no later than the July EMS Trust Fund Project Solicitation.

(4) In parallel to b. and c. above, work with the County staff and the Board’s Health and Hospital Committee to determine how to accelerate decision making processes on allocation of EMS Trust Fund money to implement improvements in advance of the conclusion of the next EMS Trust Fund grant cycle in July 2018.

(b) Agendize Council discussion and action regarding Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and direct the City Manager to present options to Council that would achieve a more efficient and effective EMS model. The City Manager should include the following:

(1) Overview of potential models-public-private, private or other alternatives- and best-practices in other jurisdictions, including Contra Costa County.

(2) How a public-private model would be organized and implemented.

(3) If the County, through the RFP process, elects to maintain the existing private model with some modifications, what changes would staff propose under the existing model that could improve system efficiency?

Conduct a Public Hearing on the City’s Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for the Fiscal Year 2017-2018, the Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for 2018-2022, and the Proposed Fees and Charges Report for the Fiscal Year 2017-2018.

The Planning Commission is recommending that Council reject staff recommendations amending the Zoning Code and the resolution revising the policy titled “Conversion of Mobilehome Parks to Other Uses.” At that Planning Commission’s hearing, mobilehome park residents and attorneys from the Silicon Valley Law Foundation representing mobilehome park residents spoke on the items. Several speakers commented that, as proposed, under the draft mobile home park Closure Ordinance, it is easier to close a mobilehome park, sell the property, and then convert it, thereby circumventing the existing conversion ordinance. They stated that prohibitions needed to be added to prevent the landowner from doing such circumvention, such as a 10-year ban on property being sold. They noted that none of the ordinances actually preserve a mobile home community, but might make the sale of a mobilehome park difficult. A representative from the Law Foundation stated that having a closure ordinance will mean that San José will be stripped of its ability to review displacing applications that really seek to convert parks and avoid replacing affordable housing units.

Letter from Hopkins & Carley submitted on behalf of the Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET) and the owners of mobile home parks in San Jose, includes the following objections to the proposed General Plan changes, the Council Policy 6-33 changes, the Mobilehome Park rent control ordinance, the Mobilehome Park conversion ordinance, the zoning code changes and the Mobilehome Park closure ordinance:

The closure ordinance and the conversion ordinance and policies are inconsistent with and preempted by state law

The city’s package of infringements on property rights violate the united states constitution

The closure ordinance alone violates the US Constitution

The use of policy guidelines to avoid amending the mobilehome park conversion ordinance is a violation of constitutional rights to due process

The conversion ordinance violates the US Constitution prohibition of taking property without just compensation

CEQA requires environmental review before the closure ordinance can be adopted and before the general plan can be changed

Direct the City Manager to bring back the required ordinance, including establishment of a new department, plans, and budget actions for Council consideration, to enable the start-up of San Jose Clean Energy in Fiscal Year 2017-2018.

Receiving report on withdrawal of Sobrato Organization from the ENA for development of affordable housing at the corner of San Tomas and Monroe St

Council will be receiving a report on the Sobrato Organization, LLC’s withdrawal from the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the development of approximately 2.5 acres of Housing

Authority-Owned land at the corner of San Tomas Expressway and Monroe Street and refund of the $150,000 deposit.

On December 6, 2016 the City as the housing successor of the dissolved Redevelopment Agency for the City of Santa Clara and the City of Santa Clara Housing Authority approved execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (Agreement) with Sobrato Organization, LLC (Developer). The Agreement allowed for the negotiation to explore the feasibility of a proposed concept to develop 200 micro residential units, targeted to extremely low, very low and low-income adults experiencing homelessness. On February 17, 2017 following significant public input, including comments from the community meeting held on February 2, 2017, the Developer made the determination not to move forward with the initial homeless 200 micro units for the site.

On April 21, 2017 the City received written notice from the Developer to release the City of Santa Clara from the Agreement and not to pursue an affordable housing project for this site. The Agreement states that during the Due Diligence Period, the $150,000 deposit is fully refundable, except for costs incurred by the City/Housing Authority for third party reasonable costs and expenses. Preliminary reports completed by the Developer and City are on file for future use in development of the site. The City incurred approximately $5,500 in expenses. Staff will take the necessary steps with the Finance Department to issue a refund of the remaining deposit to the Developer along with a letter to confirm cancellation of the Agreement.

Committees to recommend adoption of 2016 Measure B Program Area Guidelines

With the passage of Measure B, VTA was responsible for developing guidelines for each of the nine program areas that will be receiving funds from the sales tax. These nine program categories and their funding allocations are:

Local Streets & Roads, $1.2 Billion

BART Phase II, $1.5 Billion*

Bicycle & Pedestrian, $250 Million

Caltrain Grade Separations, $700 Million

Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements, $314 Million

Highway Interchanges, $750 Million

County Expressways, $750 Million

SR 85 Corridor, $350 Million

Transit Operations, $500 Million

The proposed guidelines were developed over the past 4 months and were intended to direct the implementation for each program area and propose how the program area funds should be allocated. VTA is recommending that projected 2016 Measure B funds be allocated in two-year increments in conjunction with VTA’s two-year budget cycle. VTA will maintain a ten-year outlook to assist Member Agencies and other staff to help project when funds will be available for various program areas.